I hear you Phil, and applaud you for your civility.....I think you want that to be acknowledged and it may drive much of what you're doing; your desire to be seen as equanimous in the face of a conflagration you incited. I'm just saying lets get beyond that, yes, into thinking and ideas. That's why I'm here and the sense of community.

Onceler wrote:I hear you Phil, and applaud you for your civility.....I think you want that to be acknowledged and it may drive much of what you're doing; your desire to be seen as equanimous in the face of a conflagration you incited.

Well I would not say that I have the "desire" to project any self image of equanimity or the like ... I don't post here to feed a self image or to appear as a nice guy (or a bad guy) ... I just say what I see and there is no reason to be emotional about things as they are, ie. facts ... you only become emotional when things are not as they 'should be' ... so why build 'expectations' at all ? why make a movie or a 'drama' in the head ? ... better stick with 'what is' as it is ... and keep quiet ...

"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)

Phil2 wrote:(btw did I ever insult anyone here ? can you substantiate that ?)

Worse, you belittle posters consistently. You position yourself as superior.

Could you give some examples ?

??

Sure, just look at your use of emoticons as an example. What do they say in symbol? You laugh 'at' others (certainly not 'with' them), you roll your eyes at other's perspective (suggesting superiority), and you use unnecessary double question marks to emphasize what? An effort to control?

You are ever ready to point out what you deem as negative in others, yet you make little effort to inspire. It seems you could be in the presence of a beautiful sunset and see only the dog droppings on the ground nearby. Members come here to explore and find clarity in their true nature and being. You however, point mostly to what you perceive as their shortcomings.

To live through ego is not wrong. We all do to some extent - even you. Denial is itself ego in action. The problem with denial is that it blinds us to opportunities for self awareness and evaluation of experience. Give credit, learn to inspire, focus on you own internal processes and never assume you are better than others in our ego expressions.

Webwanderer wrote:Worse, you belittle posters consistently. You position yourself as superior.

Could you give some examples ?

??

Sure, just look at your use of emoticons as an example. What do they say in symbol? You laugh 'at' others (certainly not 'with' them), you roll your eyes at other's perspective (suggesting superiority), and you use unnecessary double question marks to emphasize what? An effort to control?

If I understand well I am superior because I use emoticons and double question marks ... isn't all this your own prejudices and interpretations ? This is not very 'convincing' as 'evidence' ...

Well, why make a problem of that anyway ? Why are those emoticons so upsetting ? Seems we are making a storm in a cup of tea here, no ?

"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)

OK WW, I respect your worry and good intent to keep this forum peaceful and friendly and your kind role as moderator ... could you please re-read this whole thread and see that I am not the one who has created this emotional 'drama' ...

No emoticons or question marks here ...

"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)

Onceler wrote:I hear you Phil, and applaud you for your civility.....I think you want that to be acknowledged and it may drive much of what you're doing; your desire to be seen as equanimous in the face of a conflagration you incited.

Well I would not say that I have the "desire" to project any self image of equanimity or the like ... I don't post here to feed a self image or to appear as a nice guy (or a bad guy) ... I just say what I see and there is no reason to be emotional about things as they are, ie. facts ... you only become emotional when things are not as they 'should be' ... so why build 'expectations' at all ? why make a movie or a 'drama' in the head ? ... better stick with 'what is' as it is ... and keep quiet ...

Agreed. Although I'm 'nice' so that we can discuss ideas and perspectives, not personal reactions. I guess we each have different goals for this forum.

WW, I applaud your efforts, but I would give up. It's not registering and likely nor will it. There's a lot of denial where you're trying to get through to and likely a lot of suppression of emotions at the same time it seems just from his responses. Just go see his latest comments in Jack's thread again. Nothing gets penetrated. Denial is pretty tough to overcome. Ironically the strongest ego of all.

To me, it looks like Phil and ekidhardt are on most people's black list, clearly they're not this forum's favorite members, and yet they still come back to post. If I were them, I would have been long gone from this forum because I couldn't handle everyone backing me up in a corner and throwing backlash at me, or I would have made a new account/identity and start from fresh...

If you point out someone's negative traits to them, do you really think that their first instinct will be to agree with you? Devalue someone, and they may devalue you (I can't think of a better word right now, but what I mean is pointing fingers at someone and accusing them of being some unwanted characteristic like being close-minded, or a jerk, or being in denial of their ego.) I think that people have to figure out those things out for themselves upon self-reflection; they will agree with you when they decide for themselves that what you said is/was true, not because you said so because who are you to judge another person? Good luck on getting Phil and ekidhardt to agree with you and good luck Phil and ekidhardt on getting everyone else to agree with you.

To me, these drama inducing posts are lengthy because there's rarely any conclusion/agreement on both sides so the excuses go on and on, no one wants to back down first and let the other win with having the last say. It's like a game of ping pong.

That was an unpopular opinion, I know.

"If you want to know what your were like in the past, look at your body today. If you want to know what your body will be like in the future, look at your thoughts today." -Deepak

Clouded wrote:If you point out someone's negative traits to them, do you really think that their first instinct will be to agree with you? Devalue someone, and they may devalue you (I can't think of a better word right now, but what I mean is pointing fingers at someone and accusing them of being some unwanted characteristic like being close-minded, or a jerk, or being in denial of their ego.) I think that people have to figure out those things out for themselves upon self-reflection; they will agree with you when they decide for themselves that what you said is/was true, not because you said so because who are you to judge another person? Good luck on getting Phil and ekidhardt to agree with you and good luck Phil and ekidhardt on getting everyone else to agree with you.

To me, these drama inducing posts are lengthy because there's rarely any conclusion/agreement on both sides so the excuses go on and on, no one wants to back down first and let the other win with having the last say. It's like a game of ping pong.

That was an unpopular opinion, I know.

Good observations Clouded. I'm not going to disagree with you. However, I think everyone has tried reasonably at some point or another without blatantly pointing fingers to get Phil to open a bit and it hasn't worked and it's (through cause and effect) led to this thread. Just read through the thread Clouded and see my initial interaction with Phil and then see the direction he decided to take. You might say that I was a bit harsh on him in the thread. However, I don't think so. Phil decided to comment on something in a negative manner and I merely tried to engage a discussion with him about the video and he refused to talk about it. Oh well.

I've had countless posters point me in a less limited direction and I still do. Smiley Jen has on numerous occasions let me know when my perspective has really narrowed. She's been a great mirror for me and a great reminder. It's tough for all of us to accept sometimes that we are operating from very narrow lenses, but that's what spirituality and awakening is about. Sometimes our perspective narrows more and other times opens up more. Phil can not take any kind of constructive criticism.

So, I get what you're saying and I think it's a good observation, but I think Phil brought this thread upon himself.

Phil said: But Jen I said it several times, I just say what I see and I stick to facts ... when I see ego at work I just expose it ... and egos won't like that of course ... but I don't consider this as a "mission" ... is it a "mission" to see things as they are ?

You yourself know Phil, we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are (Anais Nin)

And none of us are this perfect or clinical / robotic as to stick to 'facts', you and all of us express opinions, and at times those opinions are expressed in frustration in either lack of understanding or lack of acceptance, rather than curiously seeking to understand that which we haven't grasped.

When that occurs the underlying energies say more than the words used, even in this medium. Sincerity yes, I see that, but not selfless, not egoless and not in a way that promotes higher understanding.

Your 'sword' analogy is being played out literally across our world (always has been), do you see it promoting more or less awareness, and more or less suffering?

Mindfulness is not 'empty', nor still, nor quiet imho, especially in a discussion forum where we ummm discuss stuff it is richly full of all the different perceiving and interpreting of stimuli.

Can you accept that as 'it is what it is' and rather than stifle, participate within it as it is .... to ask your own question... Well, why make a problem of that anyway ?Which is the bed of the question I asked earlier - why do you seek to stifle discussion, as if you've found a short cut but are unwilling to share it in a way that others can absorb and be persuaded by?

I realise this will already be 'too verbose' in your opinion (it's not a universal fact - merely your perception), so accept it, --- you won't change it - you absolutely may choose to remove your attention from it. These the only three 'sane' responses, according to ET.

The (hugely ironic) thing that I see is that there is value in your thinking... yup you respond through thoughts just like all the rest of us, the difficulty that people have in getting on the same wave length is your delivery (exactly what you highlight about my posts) - yours comes across as curt and judgemental, and yes, even egotistical and controlling.

The higher almost hilarious aspect in instant karma sense, is that the discussion that Danny and I were having in the other thread about the three elements of effective communication - ethos, pathos, and logos, - that you deemed superfluous and too hard to filter into your awareness, are exactly the elements that are often missing in your responses and where the confusions arise.

I'm not saying you should, or have to include them in your awareness, but it would do no harm if you chose to. Blockages to awareness and to communing in harmony (which doesn't mean always agreeing, but respecting differences) are not just ego. To see it so is to describe your own world, and to assume that it is others' world as well.

Just my million dollars worth, cos you are worth far more than two cents to me I don't share lengthy posts for my own (or my ego's) sake, I share them because they are what arises in mindfulness in communing fully, openly, authentically with others. If something irritates me I explore it knowing that the irritation is coming from within me, not from outside, and if something is of no interest to me then I just pass it by, I don't see a need to limit the expressing or interests that others are exploring, that would be making enemy, obstacle or means to an end of it, and behaving a little like the CEO of the universe.

Clouded, there is no need to even see this as 'drama' and feed those elements of it, we grow in ever widening circles, Phil and I (and me and many others) have disagreed robustly on ideas when we have each been willing to, at times beyond my capacity and I am grateful for it. (Re) Balance will occur in relating, give and take on all sides - if you push a thing too far in one direction it will rebound and come back to you - just 'is'.

Sorry enlightened2b, but since this thread is already hijacked, it may be relevant to the community to discuss how the members in a spiritual setting/Forum communicate with each other effectively. We have already started that discussion and it may warrant another thread. It seems to me in my limited, but diverse, reading of spiritual matters,that it is the role of the spiritual teacher to address or attack the ego, and not the peers of that person. And, as I pointed out above, I don't think there's any where in Tolle's writings that he advises triggeringand egos of those around us,in order to advance their evolution. In fact, he seems to advise the opposite. Be mindful of the egos of those around you and don't trigger pain bodies purposefully. It seems this is tricky business and should be done carefully and incisively, and not done collegially in a setting like this where, generally speaking, we are all peers.

I remember Adyashanti saying in an interview I once read that the Zen community he was a part of really begin to take off when the members started talking to each other and having discussions about their progress and experiences, rather than going it alone and a solitary fashion within the community. He said the direct exchange of experiences and ideas helped many members to proceed at a much faster rate. I don't think this form is in anyway like that situation, but the accrued perspectives and positive interactions I've had here have gone a long way to shaping my growth and progress. Just as spanking a child creates a child who may learn to hit others, I think targeting the ego only solidifies and amplifies egoic reactions and patterns… Unless of course, this is done by somebody that knows what they're doing.

No need to apologize Onceler. The direction of the thread will go where it goes.

The way I see it is that when the ego gets targeted, it's a wonderful opportunity for us to observe ourselves and see our own reactions.

On the other hand, the way the ego has been treated on this forum, would lead one to think it is a static entity. That's not how I see it. Each of us no matter what we do, will always be experiencing somewhat from ego, including the most enlightened of all of us (Eckhart Tolle and company). The reason is the ego equals limited perspective. And each of us is experiencing through a human vehicle which is inherently limited regardless of how enlightened we might be. It all depends on the degree of awakening. I'm staying further away from the term 'ego' these days and what resonates more for me are the terms 'limited' and 'unlimited', in the sense that, the more awakened we are, the less limited our perspective becomes, while the stronger the 'ego' is, really means that we are still perceiving through a tight lens of beliefs. But, we can never be fully unlimited in this human vehicle, which gets lost often.

As long as we are experiencing/perceiving through these human vehicles, we are limited as we cannot grasp the entire picture. However, within the limited human perspective, affords us the opportunity to willingly go beyond the narrow scope of our conditioned self and come as close as possible to our unlimited nature as Being/Love or we can continue viewing life through the lens of 'should or should not'.

But, the ironic part in targeting another person's ego is that the people on this forum (especially of late) who think they are 'going after people's egos' fail to understand that it is only their very own ego (and likely stronger than the ones they are targeting) that is going after other egos and is likely stemming from their own insecurity with something in their lives which they are unlovingly projecting onto others.

That aside, we are Being human. We are not robots. Each of us has feelings. If Onceler, you were to say to me......hey E2B, you are a bleeping ignorant, unenlightened moron and I'm tired of your act here on this forum, I can react in a number of ways. Do you think I would just sit there and not feel hurt by it? Of course, I would be hurt. But, my level of 'hurt' would be a whole different animal than where it was prior to my awakening. Meaning, there is a level of comfort underneath the hurt as there is a level of comfort underneath the fear that still exists within me (largely related to disease and my body).

In the past, I would likely unconsciously react and try to hurt you immediately back and you know what? At times, it still happens. And I love myself enough to realize I'm merely a human being just like the rest of you. I'm not perfect while in this human body and that's what makes life that much better. But, I'm so much more aware now, that my reactionary unconscious responses are less and less now. Instead, I try to understand where the other person is coming from now. What makes them pain so much to approach me in such a hurtful manner? And I can see oh so much more now that other people's perspectives stem from their lifetimes of conditioning, just like mine does. I can't control the way another person reacts, but that doesn't mean I can't control how I react. However, that also doesn't mean that I'm going to sit there and have no emotions to a hurtful comment. It just means that within my own awareness, I can willingly respond from a place of Love understanding that this person's experience is different than mine or a place of fear, and try to unconsciously hurt the person back.

The spiritual bypassing I am seeing in this spiritual community among a couple of posters in particular is the belief that any kind of response to a criticism is deemed as an 'egoic reaction' as if responding to someone is a sign of unenlightenment. Basically, meaning we are supposed to be robots and I'm sorry, but that's just totally missing the point of our nature and life in general. We are Awareness. We are Being. BUT....we are experiencing AS humans. Therefore, conditioning within ALL of us is a factor including conditioning from past lives potentially. Your level of Awareness is determined by how much you believe yourself to be merely just a human being. When your perspective grows, things become less and less personal. But, that doesn't mean we can ever do away completely with the personal. I get the vibe that many who believe they have completely abolished hteir own egos are just suppressing their emotions and spiritually bypassing. I know I'm a work in progress as far as awakening, but this forum has been a wonderful tool for me as well as you, in seeing my own self in relation to others. It's all about relationships. Relationships really are, our biggest tools. They truly are mirrors.